cell house demolition - epa website · 2011. 8. 15. · demolition of a redundant cell house...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Cell House Demolition

Burnie

Tas Paper Pty Ltd

Report and recommendations of the EPA Division Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority July 2011

Environmental Assessment Report – Tas Paper Burnie House Demolition

I

Environmental Assessment Report

Proponent Tas Paper Pty Ltd (Tas Paper)

Proposal Demolition of Redundant Cell House

Location Marine Terrace Burnie

NELMS no. 8594

DA number 2011/39

File 11 13 14

Document Class of Assessment

G:\EEO_Enviro_Ops\EAS_Assessments\EAS_Projects\Tas Paper\AR 2A

Assessment process milestones

13/1/2008 Notice of Intent submitted

21/1/2009 EER Guidelines issued

24/5/2011 Permit application submitted to Council

24/5/2011 Application received by Board

28/5/2011 Start of public consultation period

10/6/2011 End of public consultation period

Acronyms

Board Board of the Environment Protection Authority

EER Environmental Effects Report

DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

EIA Environmental impact assessment

EMPC Act Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

LUPA Act Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

SD Sustainable development


3

Table of Contents

1 Approvals process ..................................................................................... 3

2 SD objectives and EIA principles .............................................................. 4

3 The proposal ............................................................................................. 4 4 Need for proposal and alternatives ........................................................... 6

5 Public and agency consultation ................................................................. 6 6 Evaluation of environmental issues ........................................................... 6

7 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 15 8 References .............................................................................................. 15 9 Summary of appendices .......................................................................... 15

1 Approvals process An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to Burnie Council on 24 May 2011.

The proposal is defined as a ‘level 2 activity’ under Schedule 2 Subsection (2)(f) of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being the demolition of a building previously associated with the manufacture of paper. Section 25(1) of the EMPC Act required Council to refer the application to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) for assessment under the Act. The application was received by the Board on 24 May 2011.

The assessment has been undertaken by the Director, Environment Protection Authority under delegation from the Board.

One draft of the EER was submitted to the Department for comment prior to its formal submission. A final EER was submitted to Council with the permit application. The EER was released for public inspection for a 14-day period commencing on 28 May 2011. Advertisements were placed in the Advocate newspaper and on the EPA web site. The EER was also referred at this time to relevant government agencies for comment. No public submissions were received. The A/Director EPA submitted a representation to Burnie Council. This representation stated “In making this representation the Board is not expressing a view in relation to the above proposal, but is implementing written advice of the Chairman of the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal dated 15 April 2011 in order to ensure that the EPA is able to join any appeal that may arise in future”.

Consequently, for the purposes of this Assessment Report, it is considered that no representations in relation to environmental issues were received.


4

2 SD objectives and EIA principles The proposal must be considered by the Director in the context of the sustainable development objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania (RMPS), and in the context of the objectives of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control System (EMPCS) established by the EMPC Act. The functions of the Board are to administer and enforce the provisions of the Act, and in particular to use its best endeavours to protect the environment of Tasmania, and to further the RMPS and EMPCS objectives.

The Director must undertake the assessment of the proposal in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Principles defined in Section 74 of the EMPC Act.

3 The proposal The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in Part B of the EER.

Table 1: Summary of key proposal characteristics Activity

Demolition of a redundant Cell House contaminated with mercury and containing an asbestos roof, and remediation of contaminated soil surrounding the Cell House.

Location and planning context

Location 72 Marine Terrace, South Burnie

Land zoning Industrial

Land tenure Owned by proponent Existing site

Land Use Industrial site formerly used for paper production

Topography The site slopes to the north

Geology The Cell Plant area comprises Quaternary gravel, sand, clay (marine deposits).

Soils Clays and sand

Hydrology A network of bores is established on site. The inferred groundwater flow is to the northeast (towards Bass Strait).

Fauna The Cell House area is covered with concrete and surrounded by other buildings etc

Flora There is no flora within the proposed activity Local region

Climate Rainfall approximately 950mm per annum.

Surrounding land and uses

The area is surrounded by residences to the west, lightly forested areas to the south, Emu river to the east and Bass Strait to the north (Figure 1).

Species of conservation significance

The Proposal is located within 300 metres of the coast, and therefore near a Council and Crown Reserve Foreshore Area adjacent to Bass Strait. One sighting of Engaeus yabbimunna Burrowing Crayfish (Burnie) is recorded on the Natural Values Atlas.

Proposed infrastructure

Major equipment Typical machinery required for demolition and remediation of soil contamination.

Other infrastructure

None


5

Inputs

Water Some water required for dust suppression

Energy Diesel for transport and machinery

Other raw materials

Clean fill sourced from on or off site to profile areas of removed soil back to acceptable levels to suit the surrounding site.

Wastes and emissions

Liquid Water used for dust suppression

Atmospheric Potential dust from demolition

Solid Contaminated building materials and soils

Noise Demolition and earthmoving activities Commissioning and operations

Operating hours 700 to 1800 hours, Monday to Saturday

Project timetable Begin ASAP after approval, completion within three years of commencement. Other key characteristics

The proposal will require the transport and disposal of contaminated waste that is classified as Level 2, 3 and 4 as per Bulletin 105*. It is proposed that Level 2 waste would be disposed of at a licensed Tasmanian landfill. According to the EER, Level 3 and 4 wastes were to be shipped to Queensland to be treated by a private company (Virotec Global Solutions Pty Ltd). The remediated waste would then be disposed of in a Queensland landfill, or returned to Tasmania for disposal at an appropriate landfill. The proponent has subsequently advised that they are in negotiations with several Tasmanian companies to treat the Level 3 and 4 materials to a level that would allow disposal within Tasmania (Level 2). *Information Bulletin 105, Classification and Management of Contaminated Soil for Disposal

Figure 1: Locality of the Burnie Mill and Surrounds (from Figure 2 of the EER)

Bass Strait

Emu River


6

4 Need for proposal and alternatives Tas Paper proposes to close the operation at Burnie and seek a buyer for the site. As part of that process, Tas Paper decided to remove liabilities such as historic contamination to improve the prospects of a sale.

5 Public and agency consultation The Development Application and EER were released for public inspection for a 14-day period commencing on 28 May 2011. An advertisement was placed in the Burnie “Advocate”

No public representations were received (other than EPA).

The EER was referred to a number of government agencies/bodies with an interest in the proposal. Responses were received from the following:

• Workplace Standards Tasmania;

• Public and Environmental Health (DHHS)

The following Divisions/Areas of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment also provided submissions on the EER:

• Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania;

• Waste Management Section EPA Division;

According to the EER, consultation within the wider community was to be undertaken via the Burnie City Council Development Application process.

6 Evaluation of environmental issues The environmental issues considered relevant to the proposal have been evaluated by the EPA Division. Details of this evaluation, along with recommended permit conditions, are shown in the table below.


7

Table 2 Assessment of environmental issues

Issue Aboriginal heritage Description of potential impacts Impacts on Aboriginal heritage through ground disturbance. Management measures proposed in EER According to the EER, the proponent was advised by Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) that the area has low probability of Aboriginal heritage being present. Accordingly there is no requirement for an Aboriginal heritage investigation and Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania have no objection to the project proceeding. Public and agency comment AHT provided the same advice to the EPA Division as provided to the proponent Evaluation and recommendation Considering the advice from AHT, it is recommended that the standard advice relating to legal obligations under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 (L03) be included in the permit. Recommendation It is recommended that the standard advice relating to legal obligations under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 (L03) be included in the permit.


8

Issue Atmospheric (dust) Description of potential impacts Impacts on environmental and human health from asbestos and mercury contaminated dust. Management measures proposed in EER Vacuum Cleaning of all areas of potentially contaminated dust and removal by a registered waste transporter. Containment and disposal of any contaminated materials generated by the demolition process (eg dust, and asbestos fibres). Potential human health impacts associated with asbestos and mercury contamination will be addressed using an established Mercury and Asbestos Hygiene Training Session (Commitment 3). Public and agency comment Workplace Standards Tasmania (WST) advised that the past management of a mercury contaminated cell house at the Tas Paper Wesley Vale site was handled appropriately. Inspectors will attend initial training sessions to ensure that appropriate procedures are put in place. WST provided a list of the relevant regulations that would control the demolition and remediation. This list was passed on to the proponent. Public and Environmental Health (DHHS) advised that adherence to the WST legislation to protect staff within the site would ensure that there would be minimal risk to the public off-site from dust emissions. Evaluation and recommendation The proposed measures appear appropriate based on the advice of WST, and Public and Environmental Health. It is recommended that the permit contain a condition requiring the proponent to comply with Best Practice Environmental Management (BPEM) and the EER (G1), and a condition to control dust (A1). Recommendation It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with standard condition G1 (Compliance with BPEM and EER), and non-standard conditions A1 (Control of dust emissions) and G6 (Commitments). It is also recommended that the proponent is advised of their legal obligations in Schedule 3 (L05).


9

Issue Flora and fauna Description of potential impacts Impacts on flora and fauna from demolition and soil remediation activities. Management measures proposed in EER The disturbance of vegetation will, as far as practical, be minimised (Commitment 1). The Proposal will not result in filling, excavation or impoundment of a river, creek, wetland or estuary (Commitment 2) Public and agency comment There was no comment relating to flora and fauna Evaluation and recommendation There is no native vegetation within the proposed demolition area (The Land). It is therefore considered highly unlikely that flora and fauna would be impacted as a result of this demolition, and the proponent has committed to not fill in any water body. Recommendation It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with non-standard condition G6 (Commitments).


10

Issue Effluent disposal Description of potential impacts In order to control dust, dampening using water may be required. This has the potential to result in mercury contaminated effluent. Management measures proposed in EER According to the EER; “The method of dust suppression and retaining dust dampening water is to be approved by the Tas Paper Site Supervisor as determined by the work procedures for each section”. “Water use will be minimised to every extent possible while ensuring that WST procedures are met (such as vacuuming dust prior to demolition)”. “Only minimal runoff should occur during dampening down, and any runoff should only have low contamination and would collect on to soil which is already contaminated.” “Temporary bunds will be created down slope of the Cell Plant.” After the asbestos has been removed, soil that has received any dampening water will be sampled.The Proposal should not result in the discharge of contaminated liquid effluent (Commitmento5). Public and agency comment No comments were received in relation to effluent disposal. Evaluation and recommendation The use of water is likely to be unavoidable in order for the proponent to protect human health from mercury contaminated asbestos dust. The measures proposed such as vacuuming dust would be expected to limit the amount of water required. Appropriate bunds down slope of the Cell House would also retain any potentially contaminated water on the Land. While this water could contaminate the Land, the proposed remediation process (including sampling and removal of the soil post-demolition) would be expected to remove the potential for long term contamination. The EPA Division’s Waste Section recommended that the proponent be required to undertake an environmental site assessment post remediation to assess whether the site is suitable for ongoing use as an industrial site (G8). This condition also requires the proponent to demonstrate that pollution has not, and will not, migrate off the Land. It is recommended that the permit contain a condition preventing the discharge of potentially contaminated water from the Land (E3). Condition E1 requires perimeter drains to be established around the Land, and E2 is a standard condition relating to management of stormwater on the Land. Recommendation It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with standard conditions E1 (Perimeter drains) and E2 (Stormwater) and non-standard conditions E3 (Dust suppression water) G8 (Environmental site assessment) and G6 (Commitments).


11

Issue Groundwater Description of potential impacts Impact on groundwater from soil contamination Management measures proposed in EER No specific measures were proposed Public and agency comment No comment was received regarding groundwater. Evaluation and recommendation A groundwater monitoring network is established on this site. A total of seventeen monitoring bores (MB) were originally installed throughout the site - four of which were strategically placed near the Cell Plant Area. Slight exceedances of ANZECC marine water quality trigger values have been recorded. Removal of the mercury under the Cell House will reduce the risk of further groundwater contamination. The EPA Division’s Waste Management Section advised that the environmental site assessment (proposed condition G8) requires soil samples to be taken after excavation (validation sampling) to ensure all the mercury has been removed.

Recommendation It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with non-standard condition G8 (Environmental site assessment). Issue Hazardous materials Description of potential impacts According to the EER, it is likely that small quantities of oxy-acetylene gases will be required, plus diesel for machinery (eg excavator). Management measures proposed in EER Contractors will be required to use their own storages and manage their hazardous goods accordingly. All contractors will undertake works under the close supervision of Tas Paper. All works will comply with Tas Paper’s Permit to Work system. Public and agency comment No comments received in relation to hazardous goods. Evaluation and recommendation The management measures appear appropriate Recommendation It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with standard condition G1 (Compliance with BPEM and EER).


12

Issue Noise Description of potential impacts Noise impacts on residences resulting from demolition and earth works Management measures proposed in EER

• The proponent considered it unlikely that nuisance would be caused because the nearest residence is 250 metres away and the Cell House is located at the rear of the site.

• If a noise complaint is received, it will be investigated (Commitment 8). Public and agency comment The EPA Division noise specialist advised that the activity is not expected to cause a noise nuisance to neighbouring residences providing the proposed noise emission limits are met. Evaluation and recommendation The nearest residences are approximately 250 metres away. The current activity operates under Environmental Protection Notice (EPN) 7433/1 This EPN has a noise condition that limits noise at another domestic premises to 50 dB(A) from 0600 to 2300 hours a day, and 45 dB(A) 2300 to 600 hours a day. Considering that this noise limit currently exists, and the proponent stated that the proposed activity would be carried out during business hours, the noise specialist recommended that the noise limit should be 50 dB(A) from 0700 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, and 0800 hours to 1600 hours on Saturday. 40 dB(A) is recommended for all other times (N1). It is recommended that operating hours be limited to 0700 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1600 Saturday (N2). Recommendation It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with non-standard conditions G6 (Commitments), N1 (Noise limits) and N2 (Operating hours).


13

Issue Rehabilitation Description of potential impacts Erosion and visual impact Management measures proposed in EER The proponent stated that The Proposal encompasses rehabilitation of the Burnie Cell Plant area. Public and agency comment No public comments received. The Waste Management Section recommended that the proponent be required to undertake an environmental site assessment post remediation. Evaluation and recommendation As stated by the proponent, the proposal entails the rehabilitation of the site. The remediation is part of a site-wide rehabilitation of the site. An environmental site assessment post remediation to assess whether the site is suitable for ongoing use as an industrial site (proposed condition G8) would allow assessment of the success of the remediation. Recommendation It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with non-standard condition G8 (Environmental site assessment).


14

Issue Waste management Description of potential impacts Impact resulting from the removal, transport and disposal of contamination waste materials. These materials include building materials and soil contaminated with asbestos and mercury. Management measures proposed in EER

• All Level 2 materials (as defined in Bulletin 105) will be disposed of at an appropriate licensed landfill facility in Tasmania (Commitment 6).

• Level 3 and 4 waste (as defined in Bulletin 105) will be managed by external contractors and transported interstate (Commitment 7).

Subsequent to the public consultation period, the proponent advised the EPA Division that they were exploring options for the treatment and disposal of Level 3 and 4 wastes within Tasmania. Public and agency comment No public representations were received. The EPA Division’s Waste Section provided advice on the regulatory mechanisms under Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management Regulations) 2010, that the proponent must adhere to in relation to the transport and disposal of any controlled waste within Tasmania, and National Environment Protection (Movement Of Controlled Waste Between States And Territories) Measure as Varied November 2010 for interstate movements. Evaluation and recommendation The EPA Division’s Waste Section advised that the proposed approach by the proponent complies with the above regulations. The contaminated sites unit advised that a contaminated site must be cleaned up to the extent necessary so that environmental harm would not be caused off-site, and that the site is suitable for the designated future land use. In this case, the EER stated that the site use would remain as industrial. It is the opinion of the EPA Division that waste from the site can be managed in an appropriate manner through compliance with the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2000, and National Environment Protection (Movement Of Controlled Waste Between States And Territories) Measure as Varied November 2010 (L06), controlled waste transport regulations (WM1) and the waste management hierarchy (WM2). Recommendation It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with standard conditions WM1 (Controlled waste transport) and WM2 (Waste management hierarchy), and advice relating to legal obligations under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2000, and National Environment Protection (Movement Of Controlled Waste Between States And Territories) Measure as Varied November 2010 (L06), It is also recommended that the relevant sections of EMPCA are brought to the attention of the proponent via a letter from the Director.


15

7 Conclusions The EPA Division is of the view that:

(i) the RMPS and EMPCS objectives have been duly and properly pursued in the assessment of the proposal; and

(ii) the assessment of the proposal has been undertaken in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Principles; and

(iii) the recommendations set out in this report accord with the Board’s responsibilities in relation to these objectives and principles.

This assessment has been based upon the information provided by the proponent in the permit application, and the EER.

This assessment has incorporated specialist advice provided by Divisions of DPIPWE in relation to a number of key issues.

It is concluded that the proposal is capable of being managed in an environmentally acceptable manner such that it is unlikely that the RMPS and EMPCS objectives would be compromised, provided that the recommendations made in this report are satisfactorily implemented, including the commitments made by the proponent in the EER.

8 References Karen Pascoe, May 2011. Tas Paper – Burnie Mill Environmental Effects Report for Demolition of Redundant Cell Plant Area and Remediation of Contamination.

Bulletin 105, 2009. Classification and Management of Contaminated Soil for Disposal, Tasmanian EPA, September 2009

9 Summary of appendices Appendix 1 Proposed permit conditions, includes Attachment 2 EER commitments


Appendix 1

Appendix 1 Proposed permit conditions

cell house demolition - epa website · 2011. 8. 15. · demolition of a redundant cell house...

Documents